10.30.2003

i have to admit, it's rather disheartening to see how there are so many frauds, poseurs and pseudointellectuals spewing their selfrighteous pseudointegrity out there, completely distracting from and clogging up real and valid discourse and intellectual progress. ted rall, paul krugman, janeane garafolo come to mind. but this stupid fuck takes the cake. he's the tyrant king of the nihilist left and i thank andrew sullivan for keeping tabs on him and pointing to this little editorial that once again exposes this charlatan.

"I can still remember seeing him do his classic 'Galileo' bit in the early '90s," said fellow comedian George Carlin, referring to the pope's 1992 declaration that the church erred in condemning Galileo. "Here was this man, appearing on televisions around the world, making a proclamation that the sun does not move around the earth. I laughed until tears rolled down my cheeks."

er, uhhhh... maybe not. but legal-memo is fighting the good fight and perhaps one day he'll also get to the bottom (the real truth will emerge!) of the pretzel choking incident. as long as the anti-bush contingent focuses on these matters and others (such as the president's crotch) it appears the world will be a much better place...

10.27.2003

bring it on.

remember kids, only in the land of unicorns and rainbows can we eradicate brutality and fascism with either the snap of the fingers or the plunging of the head into the sand. in the real world, the one recognized and lived by pragmatic warriors, these things take time, effort and sacrifice. good guys are going to get killed. it's going to continue to be a struggle with many setbacks. but to take the easy way out, to give up and compare this to vietnam or lebanon, is 3rd grade. stick to drawing hearts on your notebooks while dreaming of magic wizards and wonderful fairies; the real world is not yet for u...

cnn has a little ditty on blogging that informs us that there are now 4 million blogs out there and that "the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who updates it about twice a month." i don't know, it seems to me that legal memo-random has been much more active than that lately...

ORWELL ON WAR CRITICS: "It is, I think, true to say that the intelligentsia have been more wrong about the progress of the war than the common people, and that they were more swayed by partisan feelings. The average intellectual of the Left believed, for instance, that the war was lost in 1940, that the Germans were bound to overrun Egypt in 1942, that the Japanese would never be driven out of the lands they had conquered, and that the Anglo-American bombing offensive was making no impression on Germany. He could believe these things because his hatred for the British ruling class forbade him to admit that British plans could succeed. There is no limit to the follies that can be swallowed if one is under the influence of feelings of this kind. I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." - from Notes on Nationalism.

10.22.2003

10.21.2003

props to kevin for pointing me to this site after gently chiding me for my vegetarian lifestyle (it started when he inquired why i still used leather when i thought that eating animals was wrong. that's a good, fair question and points to a lowgrade hypocrisy that i hope to soon rectify) and him finally declaring, as most carnivores do when engaged in this argument and not being able to come up with anything more compelling, "well, i like cow meat. it's delicious." well, good for u. enjoy your cow flesh or pig flesh or whatever. many people on this planet enjoy dog flesh (and u look down on them with disgust, why?). some select, interesting, people actually savour human flesh! i guess it's all a matter of cultural perspectives and what your stomach (and conscience) can handle.

christopher hitchens, as is one of his many specialties, skewers and fillets the whole process and legitimacy of bestowing sainthood upon mother teresa in today's slate. several years ago hitchens wrote a book, The Missionary Position, that brutally and convincingly destroyed the myth that MT was actually an uncommonly admirable person- she created much more harm than good by preaching to the teeming third world masses that contraception was evil, that it was their lot in life to lead such wretched lives and to accept this poverty and misery while she, starstruck and vain, hung out and fawned over the rich and famous, especially princess di, and took money from the likes of the reactionary and vicious duvalier family of haiti while praising their rule. as einstein is always summoned in speech to epitomize the ultimate in genius, MT is always evoked to demonstrate the greatest in charity, purity and "saintliness". when hitchens' book came out, most people were like, "what a dick! isn't mother teresa the last person on the planet one should attack??!?". on the contrary, it's not only appropriate but necessary to knock down these false objects of universal blind adoration and expose the dangers of their words and actions:

"She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."..."She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions."

10.20.2003

david brooks in the NYT neatly trisects the democratic party...another raging, incoherent and hysterical political diatribe from a braindead "artist"...and big up to broadwaysguy for making such a kickin' purchase. that glass eye is tight, yo.

10.17.2003

kaisercrack was so poisonous on wednesday- what the hell crawled into his panties??!?!! i don't know, middle-of-the-week blahs, overwhelming regret that i'm not this guy, the sour news of both ian gold and jake plummer's injuries and the sudden realization that the broncos might not win it all this year, tired of subsidizing legal-memorandom's lunches...

yeah, pretty much. all of that and a few other things.

but i'm so much better now, the venom level is low (m moore, t rall and their fellow retard contingent are safe, for now, at least from me- but check out spinsanity for more dirt on moore's lyin', cheatin' ways...). the broncos could still overcome the injury adversity and kick ass, the avalanche are kicking ass and will continue to do so in capturing another cup, and, of course, it's friday. oh joyous friday! i am so ready for the weekend. but aren't we all...

10.15.2003

go yankees. go cubs. then: go cubs. there was a time not too long ago that i actually wanted the red sox to take it all this year, if only to finally put an end to the self-flagellating (and pretty embarrassing) whining of their fans. no more selfpity, no more rueful mentions of "the curse"; red sox have finally won it, let's move on now jesusfuckingchrist. i was really really looking forward to this. but after game 3 and the miserable display of unsportsmanly conduct (they're fucking crybabies! and thugs!) i decided, hell NO, they don't fucking deserve it. they really don't. so i'll put up with the talk of "the curse" and the ceaseless wimpering, forever if i have to, until they can put up a topnotch team, with class, who actually deserves the glory.

ted rall is one retarded pathetic motherfuck. his brand of lowrent intellectually-blundering antiamericanism (akin to that of the freak michael moore) is such ludicrous horseshit that it's actually no surprise he attracts a sizeable audience of pseudointellects and big lebowskian nihilists, just like michael moore does.

The Bushies have a lot of problems with the time-space continuum. They like to say, for instance, that Clinton made a strong WMD case against Saddam in the '90s, so why are Democrats arguing against the same WMD case in the '00s? The answer is that time passed: Saddam destroyed his WMDs in accordance with UN requirements between 1998 and 2003. The inspections worked.

oh, really, fucktard? u know this for sure?! how in the fuck do u know this, huh? u don't; u just get off on coddling fascists, whoring yourself out as a servant and apologist for the tyrants of the world. how u would love to suck saddam's cock if u had the chance u silly, phony coward.

whatever. what irks me the most is that he considers himself a liberal; that's disgusting to me as it's such a blatant lie (any regular reader of this blog knows this by now). a true liberal has an everexpanding global vision and makes the worldwide destruction of fascism as the supreme necessity; they don't strike the ostrich pose nor do they lobby for and justify the actions of the brutal tyrants of the world. history will judge rall's thinking as the reactionary, masturbatory, empty drivel that it is, completely lacking in the fundamental kinship to true liberalism.

10.13.2003

Jesus Quintana: What is this "day of rest" shit? What is this bullshit, man? I don't fucking care! It don't matter to Jesus! But you're not fooling me! You might fool the fucks in the league office, but you don't fool Jesus! It's bush league psych-out stuff! Laughable, man! I would've fucked you in the ass Saturday, I'll fuck you in the ass next Wednesday instead! Wooo! You got a date Wednesday, baby!

andrew sullivan, blogmaster extraordinaire, has a nice little compilation of sweet goodness in the iraqi situation. as he says, despite all the elementary nihilists and their hoarse bleatings, "It remains one of the most humanitarian acts in modern history." hell yeah...

10.09.2003

i caught a little of attorney/writer scott turow on cnn with aaron brown last nite. he has written a book about the death penalty entitled The Ultimate Punishment which, rather than rehash the same old arguments in the debate, provides fresh insight and contemplation based on his professional experiences. turow first worked as a prosecutor, then on behalf of death row inmates before being appointed to serve on the Illinois Commission on Capital Punishment by governor george ryan who later declared a moratorium on executions in the state on January 31, 2000 (which will go down in history as a remarkable, exceedingly pivotal moment, in the anti-death penalty struggle, me thinks). scott turow brought up an interesting point on last nite's show: the greater or more heinous the crime, the greater the chance that mistakes will be made in the judicial process (because of overwhelming human emotion, decreased objectivity, and a greater blind cry for justice) therefore there tends to be more wrongful convictions at the capital offense level than u would find at the lesser levels. what a horrible paradox. innocent people have died, and will continue to do so, because of capital punishment. and that's only one of several very compelling reasons to abhor its very existence and wonder how any civilized country on the planet in the 21st century can continue to use it as a punitive measure. legal memorandom has another interesting link and comments pertaining to the death penalty and its fundamental immorality.

speaking of gooses, take a gander at christopher hitchens' new slate piece where he has a chat with the grandson of the late not-so-great ayatollah khomeini. yeah, that ayatollah. hossein khomeini labels the current u.s. policy and action in iraq a "liberation" and calls for a similar liberation of his native country, iran. word.

10.08.2003

10.07.2003

big ups: jonathan rauch in reason online; david brooks in the nytimes; michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution; and condoleeza rice . we continue to kick ass in iraq and, despite the constipated reproachings of the neurotic left, we will one day look back on this as a glorious moment in american, and world, history...

i think i'm in love! i first caught a glimpse of kim serafin about a week ago on some cnn panel (i think it was with aaron brown) and then again last night on hardball with chris matthews. smart, lovely and a vegetarian! now, i just got to figure out some way to make her notice me.

10.06.2003

o, brothers and sisters. kaisercrack has been agonizing over this for almost a year now and seems to be no closer to a decision. not only am i sitting on the fence but it seems i've been nailed to it. i really really really want one of these. but there are many issues of practicality that need to be analyzed, scrutinized from the inside-out/outside-in, up and down all around and back again. my heart says, "YES! HELL YES!!" but my head says, "n-ye-nyo-es" and i have no fucking clue what that means. so i ponder. and i fret. and read up on them. and covet. and fret. and talk about them. and now blog about them.

10.02.2003

fuck it, i'm weighing in on this. for the record, for posterity- so i won't feel like a spineless dickwad later on down the line. rush limbaugh said nothing racist in his remark on donovan mcnabb sunday nite and all the moronic clamor over it shows just how petty and puritanical people have gotten in our times.

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

where the fuck is the racism in this remark??! all that rush was saying (and i disagree with his sentiments, by the way- the pressure isn't from the media, it's from sports fans in general and, besides, there have been and are several successful black quarterbacks- rush's ignorance of the game is on display here) is since there is pressure from "the media" to have a successful black qb in the league mcnabb is overrated. he didn't say that mcnabb sucked, or that the only reason he's in the nfl is that he's black. there is pressure from society as a whole to get more black people involved in all types of capacities- in sports, there's a greater concern that not enough black people are in coaching or management; in business, there are woefully few blacks in leadership positions; we only have one black supreme court justice; we have yet to have a black president or vice-president. so (a) to point out this sentiment is a sociological observation and (b) to focus on an individual and say that they are overappraised in a specific capacity is a value judgement. it's not racist. i'm defending rush not in any general sense- for all i know, he could be a flaming racist fuckhead. but his comment on sunday nite does nothing to prove that. that's why his co-panelists, including two black former football players tom jackson (who can be seen nodding his head while rush made the comments) and michael irvin did not call him on his remarks. if rush had said something egregious or racist u think they would've nailed him on the spot.

when are we going to dispense with all this lame hysteria and pseudo-principled selfrighteousness and start dealing with real problems and real issues worthy of a noble society?

10.01.2003

senator dennis miller?!!??!! hmmm...
i think miller would make a fascinating, intelligent politician but if arnold's started a trend (or at least significantly enhanced it) of celebrites running for office, we could all be in big trouble, dudes. or maybe not. perhaps it wouldn't be such a terrible thing. i don't know. who cares.
(via the ben file)